Court Finds That “Marijuana” Is Distinct And Separate From “Cannabis”
Download PDF- Industry Alerts
Want to get our alerts?
Click “Subscribe Now” to get attorney insights on the latest developments in a range of services and industries.
This week in State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones, the Arizona Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that marijuana concentrates do not fall under the protections of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). The court determined that the AMMA, by not specifically including a form of extracted resin, namely Hashish, within its description of marijuana, adopts a distinction between marijuana and its concentrates that the Arizona Supreme Court made in the seventies. See State v. Bollander, 110 Ariz. 84 (1973). In essence, the Appellate Court found that “marijuana” is distinct and separate from “cannabis,” which the court believes includes extracts. The court did, however, carve out “consumables” from the prohibited cannabis extracts. The protected consumables combine marijuana with non-marijuana elements and include “brownies and the like.”
We recognize the confusion this decision causes. This appellate ruling is inconsistent with the interpretation and function of the AMMA since its enactment and the Arizona Department of Health Services’ own regulations of the AMMA—a fact that the dissent in this case recognized. The court does not seem to understand the various forms and production of marijuana; —the distinction the court makes between concentrates and other forms of marijuana allowed by the AMMA is simply not tenable. Marijuana concentrates are not only a mainstream and acceptable present-day use of medical marijuana, they are also the most effective form of treatment for certain ailments.
At present, indications from the Arizona Department of Health Services appear to be that concentrates still fall under the AMMA. Still, we are engaging with the issues evolving from this decision and are presently conducting analysis regarding its implications. We are also considering legal recourse, including involvement in a reconsideration of the opinion and an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of cannabis law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in here.
We recognize the confusion this decision causes. This appellate ruling is inconsistent with the interpretation and function of the AMMA since its enactment and the Arizona Department of Health Services’ own regulations of the AMMA—a fact that the dissent in this case recognized. The court does not seem to understand the various forms and production of marijuana; —the distinction the court makes between concentrates and other forms of marijuana allowed by the AMMA is simply not tenable. Marijuana concentrates are not only a mainstream and acceptable present-day use of medical marijuana, they are also the most effective form of treatment for certain ailments.
At present, indications from the Arizona Department of Health Services appear to be that concentrates still fall under the AMMA. Still, we are engaging with the issues evolving from this decision and are presently conducting analysis regarding its implications. We are also considering legal recourse, including involvement in a reconsideration of the opinion and an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of cannabis law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in here.
Related Practices
Recent Insights
- Industry Alerts ACC’s Permissive Power Allows ACC to Appoint an Interim Manager to Remedy Threats to Public Health and Safety
- Industry Alerts Caveat Contractor: Arizona Court Of Appeals Interprets Prompt Pay Act As “Prompt Billing Act” To Deny Relief To Unpaid Contractor
- Conferences 15th Annual Paralegal Conference on September 8, 2017
- September 12, 2024 Media Mentions Lloyd Pierre-Louis was recently quoted in the Spectrum News 1 article, “The laws and regulations around Ohio's recreational marijuana,”
- September 5, 2024 In the News Scot Crow Named to the 2024 Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers List
- August 12, 2024 Media Mentions Benjamin Sobczak was recently quoted in Crain’s Detroit Business article, “Medical, recreational marijuana licenses would be merged under lawmakers’ proposal."
- July 09, 2024 Media Mentions Jonathan Wachs was recently quoted in the Law360 article, “Dickinson Wright Adds Longtime Offit Kurman Principal in DC."
- June 21, 2024 Media Mentions Jonathan Wachs was quoted this week in the Baltimore Business Journal article “Maryland to Award 31 More Cannabis Business Licenses.”
- June 20, 2024 In the News Benton Bodamer, Taylor MacDonald, and Benjamin Sobczak recently authored “Cliffs Without Fences and Fences Without Cliffs: Exploring the Emerging Conflicts Between Quasi-Legal Intoxicating Hemp and Regulated State-Legal Cannabis” for the Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 855, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center.